You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

Matt Barkley is the safest quarterback in the draft. While it may not look like he has superstar potential, at worst you're getting a very solid starter.

is that worth the #1 pick though?

I don't think it's worth the #1 overall pick but then again I also don't think Geno Smith is worth the #1 overall pick either. For a quarterback to be the first player selected and to be expected to be the face of a franchise they need to be a special prospect. If you compare Barkley or Smith to a guy like Andrew Luck as a prospect it's clear to see that neither of them are on his level.

I would still feel very comfortable as a GM using a top ten selection on Barkely as the quarterback of the future for my franchise though. He's won at every level, he has all of the intangibles you look for in a quarterback, and he has been extremely productive in a pro-style offense. He's handled the pressure of being a four year starter for one of the best high school football programs in the country as well as being a four year starter at USC. I know he doesn't have the strongest arm, but he still has enough arm strength to make any throw in an NFL offense and all of his other skills are extremely polished and ready for the NFL level._________________

Barkley's arm strength has been seriously underrated on here for a couple years now because he doesn't have a cannon.

No, it's rated about where it should be...bad for a NFL starting QB and very questionable if he can hit the intermediate outside the hashes routes.

It's really not that questionable. This seems to be the common thought going around from the anti-Barkley camp, but it's not true. Everyone has been on him even more this season for his arm strength, even though USC not taking shots down field as much this season is almost solely based on their offensive line play. Anyone who watched his play against Utah this past week, or really watched him with any consistency throughout his career knows that his arm strength really isn't an issue. He doesn't have a cannon, but some people around here act like he's Chad Pennington post shoulder surgery out there._________________

Barkley's arm strength has been seriously underrated on here for a couple years now because he doesn't have a cannon.

No, it's rated about where it should be...bad for a NFL starting QB and very questionable if he can hit the intermediate outside the hashes routes.

It's really not that questionable. This seems to be the common thought going around from the anti-Barkley camp, but it's not true. Everyone has been on him even more this season for his arm strength, even though USC not taking shots down field as much this season is almost solely based on their offensive line play. Anyone who watched his play against Utah this past week, or really watched him with any consistency throughout his career knows that his arm strength really isn't an issue. He doesn't have a cannon, but some people around here act like he's Chad Pennington post shoulder surgery out there.

Ok, post some examples of him throwing deep outs, curls or comebacks with velocity._________________

This thread amazes me...we've gone the entire thread without one person bringing up two of Barkley's biggest strengths: character and leadership. Tools wise, everybody saying he's a second round pick is probably correct. He let's his mechanics get loose and doesn't do well with pressure in his face. But the kid has all the intangibles you could ask for, especially at that position, and those will keep him in first round contention._________________
Stone65 with the sig!

Which is a useless argument against Smith who has proven he can play in nearly any system.

How has he proven he can play in any system? In 2010 he ran a spread offense under Bill Stewart and Jeff Mullen and has ran a fluke passing spread offense the past two seasons under Dana Holgorsen.

No guy. That was a pro style system.

You know what, who honestly gives a eff? It's a freaking label and no one who can actually analyze players and systems cares about the label.

You really think NFL Scouts and GMs sit there and fret over whether a guy was in a Pro Style system or a Spread system or a Spread Option system or a freaking Air Raid system? No. It's irrelevant. THAT'S RIGHT, IRRELEVANT.

I tried telling people that with Bradford vs. Clausen. I tried telling people that with Luck vs. Griffin. And again, I'm having to tell people this. Supersuavesky, this post isn't directed at you, this is just a rant against all the people who obsess over what an offense is labeled.

You want to know what is TRULY IMPORTANT? Do you want to know what you should be looking for instead of worrying about whether an offense can be called a Pro Style offense or a Spread offense?

This is what you should be looking for:
-Does the offense utilize varying drops?
-Does the QB play under center?
-Does the offense utilize play-actions and boot-legs?
-Does the QB have progressions to go through?
-Does the QB have pre-snap responsibilities?
-Is the QB allowed to audible?
-Does the QB call protections?
-Does the QB make passes to all parts and levels of the field?
-Does the offense utilize the entire route tree?
-Does the QB look off defenders?
-Is there pre-snap motion in the offense and how much?
-How much hurry up is utilized?
-Does the offense ask the QB to stay in the pocket and throw?
-Is the QB throwing out of varying personnel packages?
-Etc.

There are hundreds of perfectly good questions to consider while watching an offense but whether it's classified as a Pro Style offense or whatever is not one of them. It's irrelevant. I don't care if you're coming from a Pro Style offense if it uses a simplified progression system and you don't make challenging throws. I don't care if you're coming from an Air Raid offense if you're asking to read defenses, are given a lot of pre-snap responsibility and make a lot of challenging throws.

Frankly, I have found that some of the WCOs utilized right now in college are really cruddy from the stand-point of giving you a lot to work with when it comes to evaluating the QB. For example, Stanford's offense with Luck seemed to often utilize a 2 to 3 progression system then Luck took off if nothing was there and the vast vast majority of passes were simple, easy, quick throws against soft coverage. It did nothing for me. Another example was the Charlie Weis offense ran with Jimmy Clausen and Brady Quinn. Everyone obsessed over how Clausen was supposedly so much more pro ready than Bradford because he came from a pro style offense when if you happened to watch them play, you'd see that wasn't remotely true.

So basically what I'm saying is forget the labels. Forget arguing over what style of offense he's in. Instead, focus on evaluating what actually happens in that offense and the type of role/responsibilities that the QB is given. That'll give you actual insight rather than making you look ignorant after you made a bunch of statements based on lazy analysis.

And again, Supersuavesky, this isn't directed at you, personally. I say you a lot in here but those are general "yous" directed at anyone falling into this trap. I'm just tired at people arguing over all the wrong things rather than trying to decipher the right information._________________

Matt Barkley is the safest quarterback in the draft. While it may not look like he has superstar potential, at worst you're getting a very solid starter.

Yea, I don't know about that.

Yeah. When he didn't have Khaled Holmes at C, he was dreadful.

Who is a safer quarterback prospect?

Safer? As in, more likely to not suck? The same guy as the best QB in the draft class, Geno Smith.

Geno has two real concerns: the offense in which he plays, and his level of competition. Good coaching can help with that. Barkley has neither of those concerns, but he adds some physical and consistency concerns, which in my opinion are a much bigger deal when you're trying to get an elite quarterback. I do think Barkley is a first round pick, but I would not take him in the first half of the first round.

That said, I think Barkley is more likely to still be in the league in 5 years. I figure that, at worst, Barkley is a decent backup. At worst, Geno is out of the league.

Wait why is Geno's quality of Comp an issue but not Barkley's-- one plays in the Big 12, the other the PAC-10-- if anything the fact that Barkley plays on one of only 3 (4 at Best-- if you include OSU) teams with anything resembling top 15 talent and depth, and plays with WRs markedly better than all but 2 teams DBs, makes me question his actual ability. Compare Geno v. Texas to Barkley v. Stanford-- those are the equal or better talent games, who looked like a potential difference maker and who looked like Mark Sanchez?

Which is a useless argument against Smith who has proven he can play in nearly any system.

How has he proven he can play in any system? In 2010 he ran a spread offense under Bill Stewart and Jeff Mullen and has ran a fluke passing spread offense the past two seasons under Dana Holgorsen.

No guy. That was a pro style system.

You know what, who honestly gives a eff? It's a freaking label and no one who can actually analyze players and systems cares about the label.

You really think NFL Scouts and GMs sit there and fret over whether a guy was in a Pro Style system or a Spread system or a Spread Option system or a freaking Air Raid system? No. It's irrelevant. THAT'S RIGHT, IRRELEVANT.

I tried telling people that with Bradford vs. Clausen. I tried telling people that with Luck vs. Griffin. And again, I'm having to tell people this. Supersuavesky, this post isn't directed at you, this is just a rant against all the people who obsess over what an offense is labeled.

You want to know what is TRULY IMPORTANT? Do you want to know what you should be looking for instead of worrying about whether an offense can be called a Pro Style offense or a Spread offense?

This is what you should be looking for:
-Does the offense utilize varying drops?
-Does the QB play under center?
-Does the offense utilize play-actions and boot-legs?
-Does the QB have progressions to go through?
-Does the QB have pre-snap responsibilities?
-Is the QB allowed to audible?
-Does the QB call protections?
-Does the QB make passes to all parts and levels of the field?
-Does the offense utilize the entire route tree?
-Does the QB look off defenders?
-Is there pre-snap motion in the offense and how much?
-How much hurry up is utilized?
-Does the offense ask the QB to stay in the pocket and throw?
-Is the QB throwing out of varying personnel packages?
-Etc.

There are hundreds of perfectly good questions to consider while watching an offense but whether it's classified as a Pro Style offense or whatever is not one of them. It's irrelevant. I don't care if you're coming from a Pro Style offense if it uses a simplified progression system and you don't make challenging throws. I don't care if you're coming from an Air Raid offense if you're asking to read defenses, are given a lot of pre-snap responsibility and make a lot of challenging throws.

Frankly, I have found that some of the WCOs utilized right now in college are really cruddy from the stand-point of giving you a lot to work with when it comes to evaluating the QB. For example, Stanford's offense with Luck seemed to often utilize a 2 to 3 progression system then Luck took off if nothing was there and the vast vast majority of passes were simple, easy, quick throws against soft coverage. It did nothing for me. Another example was the Charlie Weis offense ran with Jimmy Clausen and Brady Quinn. Everyone obsessed over how Clausen was supposedly so much more pro ready than Bradford because he came from a pro style offense when if you happened to watch them play, you'd see that wasn't remotely true.

So basically what I'm saying is forget the labels. Forget arguing over what style of offense he's in. Instead, focus on evaluating what actually happens in that offense and the type of role/responsibilities that the QB is given. That'll give you actual insight rather than making you look ignorant after you made a bunch of statements based on lazy analysis.

And again, Supersuavesky, this isn't directed at you, personally. I say you a lot in here but those are general "yous" directed at anyone falling into this trap. I'm just tired at people arguing over all the wrong things rather than trying to decipher the right information.

I agree with this and would also note 2 additional things--1) NFL teams are moving more to spread and spread concept looks- see NE, NO and Indy with Manning and to a lesser extent Denver and Carolina over the last 2 years 2) Pro Style offenses are being used less in college for a reason-- they don't win titles unless you have an overwhelming talent edge and even then they are generally secondary to the defense (the last 3 pro style title teams were Bama, Bama and LSU).